Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Any news about RC4? (Read 19863 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Any news about RC4?

Reply #75 –
Quote
Originally posted by Tom Servo
You sure about that? The way I've been learned how compilers work, it shouldn't make a difference, except for speed and size regarding what optimizations have been chosen. Especially coz how floating point functions and rounding have to work has been defined by IEEE. Or am I missing something here? ???
There seems to be slight differences between the compiler how they treat float (roundings) and maybe some other things. This is the most obvious with Lame compiles.
However I tested (only with a one track though) the output of Vorbis 1.0 VC6 compile and ICL6 compile, and it was bit-identical.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Any news about RC4?

Reply #76 –
Ok, sounds reasonable

@JohnV: this might happen AFAIK either when IEEE FP is disabled like with these Unix compiles, or the encoder is using software x87 emulation, but if it's FPU floating point, rounding would happen there following IEEE specs. I actually never checked if I can disable IEEE FP in the VC7 compiler.

Any news about RC4?

Reply #77 –
The testing I have done (not exhaustive by any means, but probably indicative of the various compilers) shows that MSVC6, MSVC7(.NET), ICL5.0.1 and ICL6.0 compiles all generate bit identical output. With OggVorbis, ICL4.5 does NOT produce bit identical output even when using the same compile options as with the other ICL compilers.

Any news about RC4?

Reply #78 –
Are needed much modifications to get this binaries compiled with MinGW GCC 3.1 Win32 port?

I have seen somewhere on the net that GCC 3.1 is very powerful, also compared with ICL 6.0.
"Taking a jazz approach and concentrating on live playing, I wanted to use several different rhythm sections and vintage instruments and amps to create a timeless sound that's geared more around musicality and vibe than sonic perfection. The key was to write with specific rhythm sections in mind, yet leave open spaces for soloing." Lee Ritenour

Any news about RC4?

Reply #79 –
I haven't tried it with 3.1, but it used to compile easily enough with 2.95. Just needs a makefile.

Any news about RC4?

Reply #80 –
Quote
Originally posted by unplugged
I have seen somewhere on the net that GCC 3.1 is very powerful, also compared with ICL 6.0.


AFAIK, it indeed generates faster code compared to VisualC.

But ICL is still the champion. (by a small margin, but the champion anyway)

Any news about RC4?

Reply #81 –
I have found a page at www.coyotegulch.com, already linked some month ago at Intel's Develper site, the starting link can be found at compiler benchmark section.
They (Intel) link to this page to demostrate by some benchmarks that ICL is heavly optimized... against GCC 2.95 and M$ VC6

...LOL, but meanwhile the page has been updated

visit http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/intel_c...gcc_bench2.html

LOL
"Taking a jazz approach and concentrating on live playing, I wanted to use several different rhythm sections and vintage instruments and amps to create a timeless sound that's geared more around musicality and vibe than sonic perfection. The key was to write with specific rhythm sections in mind, yet leave open spaces for soloing." Lee Ritenour